Fish and the Flood
44 Comments - 5799 Views
Submitted By WWDD on 09/04/27
FreeHovind, WWDD, Creation and Evolution
Here’s yet another flood question for all you creationists to think about. Aquatic organisms fall into two categories: saltwater and freshwater. There are a small handful of fish and crustaceans that thrive in both conditions, but generally it’s one or the other. For some organisms, even a small change in salinity can result in immediate death. For others, the damage is gradual but serious nonetheless. Whales, for example, are prone to infection, exhaustion and severe skin damage when they are exposed to fresh water for extended periods of time.
So if the water that caused the global flood was fresh water, how did all the marine organisms survive? Why is it that we still see fish with very complex adaptations to deal with saltwater swimming around, when according to the flood theory they would have died? My explanation would be that there never was a flood, but hey, that’s just me. What do you think?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I suspected it had been addressed already, since it’s a fairly obvious question. I’ve watched a few of his videos, but I have yet to come across it. Could you possibly tell me which seminar I might find it in, or summarize the main idea for me?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
ehm bigdog..isn't theat the seminar where he took one of them exceptions and then said all fish could survive the flood?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I checked on Google, and they most websites list 2 main possibilities. The first, as 325 pointed out, is that they give a few examples of the exceptions and then act like the same logic applies to everything. The second is this theory that the freshwater, being less dense, would form a separate layer on top of the saltwater. It doesn’t take a marine biologist to recognize that problem with that. Assuming it were possible for layers to form without mixing (which is highly unlikely), what would happen to the freshwater organisms that require some sort of substrate? The bottom feeders, the crustaceans, the plants... are they just going to float somewhere in the middle of the layer? And what about the saltwater organisms that need to be at the surface? Things like photosynthesizing plankton, which form the basis for all marine ecosystems? I think this alone disproves the worldwide flood better than any geologic column argument.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
don't forget the that water at the top layers evaporates because of the sun, thus increasing the concentration of salts..
in essence that will just remove the fresh warer layer...that is if..diffusion doesn't already do that.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Maybe later I'll look through Hovind's videos to see which one it was. He explains it very thoroughly. I believe that it has been proven however that the ocean is getting saltier everyday from the rivers of the world into the ocean. So it wasn't as salty 5 thousand years ago or so. Water creatures do adapt, not only fish but crocodiles as well, like salt water crocs. So the fish that did survive the flood have been slowly adapting. I wish I knew exactly which video it was, but here's a site I found for now.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
". I believe that it has been proven however that the ocean is getting
saltier everyday from the rivers of the world into the ocean. So it
wasn't as salty 5 thousand years ago or so."
k you DO know that the salinity of the ocean is dependent on lots of factors don;t you? and you DO know that salt is also being deposited every day. hence the salt mines of the world.
but it is just foolish to look at salinity levels and then extrapolate backwards. and (how you do it i don't know) conclude that there was a "the ocean was once all fresh water.!".
as the salinity changes can be observed in the strata... and they sure as hell don;t suddenly only appear after 5000 years ago.
" Water creatures do adapt, not only fish but crocodiles as well, like salt water crocs."
is this your version of the "some fish can live in both salt and fresh water, so all fish can" argument?
you do know that for marine animals (especially algea, which make up large portion of the foodchain) a relatively small change in salinity can be fatal? don't you? it's called osmoses.
"So the fish that did survive the flood have been slowly adapting."
which would have to include both fresh AND salt water species, and very unique ones that can only live under certain circumstances...like reef fish....
riiiiiiight.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
from bigdog source:
"because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity."
w8 what?! the weight of water induces volcanic activity? is this wierd "lets fit plate techtonics in there" statement?
(ignoring of course that most subterrenal water would be quite....warm*...
"Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot
water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water.
Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the
continents after the flood would have added salt to the oceans. In
other words, we would expect the pre-flood ocean waters to be less
salty than they were after the flood."'
aaah see, extrapolating backwards.
"
Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh
water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn
in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water
and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of
today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt
water.'uch* "few makes all" alsmost rolles out of this..
"Many families[1]
of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the
families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy,
salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and
flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and
saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate
large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the
flood."
wh8, WHAT?
specific fresh and salt water species makes the ENTIRE FAMILY CAPABLE OF BEARING LARGE CHANCES IN SALINITY?
eventhough these specific species will DIE nowadays.
"Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then."
w8...bigdog,...aren;t you engaging in a little taboo here?
"Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland,[2]
suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may
be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be
largely differences in degree rather than kind."
sso hybridization of 1 freshwater species and 1 freshwater spawning species makes the entire family capable of living through somethign that would nowadays kill them.
also that last part where they impy a anatomy statement, doesn quite seem to use the correct terms...unless some one shows me biologists using "degrees" and "kinds" as taxanomical groupings for anatomical features....
"Saltwater sharks have high
concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater
environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea
to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh
water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea
concentration decreases to less than one-third."
sharks are not sawfish.
and 1 species branch having a specific trait does not mean the other conteporary brances share that trait. in this case, large scale urine production regulation.
"So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes."
....adapt to variying degress....something the conviniently left out.
"with marine creatures accounting for 95 percent of the fossil record"
fossils form in sedimentary layers....so it shouldn't be suprising we find a lot of sea creatures.
"Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time."
and so in the fossil record we find then several layers apart from one another.....eventhough ictiosaurs where "heavier".....riiiiight...
"“fountains of the great deep” (i.e., beginning in the sea; “the great deep” means the oceans)."
ooh some intrepetation ay? how about great deep meaning a deep canyon?
"There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers
developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit
on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have
been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist
and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in
those areas."
and we find argument nr 2.
evaporation, thaline conveyer, diffusion, (marine, we established that from marker fossils) aglue blooms (which you creationst are al so happy to fit in there)
these things alone make this highly unlikely. that OR you had no blooms.
so what's it gonna be bigdog?
chalck layers? or fish?
"There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater fish could have survived the flood."
some of which did not hold up to basic scrutiny, and plausability =/= high probability.
"There is no reason to doubt the reality of the flood as described in the Bible."
then why has this article not convinced me of this?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
and from his footsnotes
"Family is one of the main levels of classification for fish. In fish
there is plenty of evidence for hybridization within families — the
trout/salmon family, for example — suggesting that families may
represent the biblical ‘kind’ in fish."
no..no the seperation between trout and salmon is not a family. it's not EVEN A GENUS!. also somehow 1 "example" does not reassure me of the validity of the claim "In fish
there is plenty of evidence for hybridization within families"...
" suggesting that families may
represent the biblical ‘kind’ in fish.""
the same "kind" in fish that includes whales? (yes, that was a little of topic)
"Trout are a number of species of freshwater fish belonging to the Salmoninae subfamily of the Salmonidae family. Salmon
belong to some of the same genera as trout but, unlike most trout, most
salmon species spend almost all their lives in salt water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subfamily_(biology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmo
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119188873/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
again, that's and F for biology creationists.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Did I say that all the water was fresh water before? I said it was less salty. You pointed this out as well like if I didn't mention it. Yes the oceans are getting more salty everyday right? Would you agree with that? Here is the video that I think Hovind explains the flood and the fresh water and salt water issue. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=43776417
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Did I say that all the water was fresh water before? I said it was less
salty. You pointed this out as well like if I didn't mention it."
out of all the point you adress this one....
please understand that a influx of fresh water that the flood would bring would completely dilute the salinity of the sea by several factors, in essence, inihalating all but the most hardy species. and that would mean we shouldn't have fresh water fishes or reef fish.
btw the reef formation also counter the flood theory, it would take more then 4400 years for the current reefs to grow to their current seizes.
and YES a global flood would completely inihalte all reefs. if only for the exta hundred metres of water that would block out the sun.
but all this is stil ignoring the fact that subterrenal water is filled with salts and very hot. meaning that at the quantities you claim must have been addded, all the oceans would turn into a salty fish stew.
oh and i forgot something in the anaalysis.
F to creationists for fact check....really trout and salmon a different family....XD the stupid it burns.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Maybe later I'll look through Hovind's videos to see which one it was. He explains it very thoroughly"
Actually not so much...It did not explain any of the issues a global flood would impose on the world's ecosystems. This was one of Hovind's critical epic Dog fails.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Doesn’t matter exactly how salty the ocean has been in the past, the point is that it contained salt and was filled with organisms adapted to deal with it. And salt is by no means the only factor to think about. Some organisms can only survive in fast-moving currents, while others require stagnant water. Some need very specific habitats, like acidic bogs or tropical mangrove swamps.
Light intensity, pH, turbidity, oxygen content, current, depth, nutrient concentrations, temperature, dissolved minerals, substrate, ect. are all factors that need to be tuned to perfection for an ecosystem to function. The very first step in the food chain consists of photosynthesizes: plants and plankton that require a specific level of all those things I just listed.
There is no fathomable way the diverse aquatic life on our planet was mixed up together in one big lake all of the sudden, and then settled right back to normal as soon as the flood receded.
Light intensity, pH, turbidity, oxygen content, current, depth, nutrient concentrations, temperature, dissolved minerals, substrate, ect. are all factors that need to be tuned to perfection for an ecosystem to function. The very first step in the food chain consists of photosynthesizes: plants and plankton that require a specific level of all those things I just listed.
There is no fathomable way the diverse aquatic life on our planet was mixed up together in one big lake all of the sudden, and then settled right back to normal as soon as the flood receded.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
btw bigdog, while we are arguing against you, we are keeping in mind your claim that "macro" evolution doesn't exists. and that (ironically it was proposed in the article) that natural selection cannot bring around such drastic changes in organism. see the natural selection that the article proposes is actually insanely fast speciation.
you catagorically deny speciation to happen...... funny.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I told you that I believe in speciation. Hovind and young earth creationists' believe in speciaton. Varieties of crocodiles is speciation. But a croc cannot turn into a cow, even over millions of years, just as a monkey cannot turn into a human over millions or billions of years. That is macro-evolution. That cannot happen naturally. That would take supernatural help.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"But a croc cannot turn into a cow, even over millions of years"
your right THAT NOT SPECIATION. SO QUIT ACCUSING US OF THINKING THAT THAT IS SPECIATION.
YOU DON't JUST TAKE 1 MODERN ANIMAL AND THEN CLAIM IT MORPHED INTO ANOTHER MODERN ANIMAL!!!
you again COMPLETELY FAIL to grasp the principal behind common ancestory and evolution.
did you even watch the movie i linked to you?
i'll link it again.
"just as a monkey cannot turn into a human over millions or billions of year"
you DO realize that when we say "man evolved from apes" we're simply stating that man'd shares a common ancestor with apes, and that that modern ancestor can be classified as an ape himself...so if we use that principal we can go back and...
nvm just wathc this vid (again). it explains this phyologenetic phenomena a bit clearer then i can.
and to PROVE to me that you actually watched them.
tell me the name of the authors AND the specific joke in the vids.
i'll link it again.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"But a croc cannot turn into a cow, even over millions of years"
Why not? You believe in natural selection...you believe in speciation. What mechanism do you propose that acts to limit the extent to which a species can change over time?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Why not? You believe in natural selection...you believe in speciation.
What mechanism do you propose that acts to limit the extent to which a
species can change over time?"
kevin...
you do know by now that bigdog will not get the point in that post. he'll just use it to troll you by claiming you DO believe the creationists strawmen of speciation.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I've tried to help you understand this for a long time. A species must "speciate" within their kind. Canines have canines and felines have only felines. And monkeys and humans cannot procreate or reproduce with each other. I'm sure they've tried in some communist country somewhere. You guys are just willingly ignorant.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"I've tried to help you understand this for a long time. A species must
"speciate" within their kind. Canines have canines and felines have
only felines."
god....the stupid...it burns so BAD bigdog....
COMMON ANCESTORY AND BRANCHING.
ANYONE with a rudementary understanding of evolutionary principle will realize that your arguement is bankrupt on the actuall topic.
god....still with ur mystical "kind".
either use a taxanomic name OR DON'T GIVE AN ARGUMENT THAT REQUIRES TAXONOMY!
i am NOT going to explain it to you again....ah hell i might as well just do it another time..oh and you DID watch the vid didn't you? y know the one about evolution? you know the one i asked you to watch...twice already...
speciation:!!!!!
(this is just one of the ways)
i have a population of animal X
the population get divided by a geographical barrier. there are now 2 population in different habitats.
each habitat favors different traits.
X in habitat 1 favours a longer tail, and is warm
X in habitat 2 favours a shorter tail, and is cold
X will evolve (via natural selection) in habitat 1,
to a new subspecies of Xy one that has a longer tail and thinner fur.
X will evolve (via natural selection) in habitat 2
to a new subspecies Xz one with a shorter tail and thicker fur.
now depending how long the geographical barrier exists, the populations wil evolve to become more and more suited to their environment and thus will grow more different from one another, both morphologically and genetically.
if the barrier exists for a long enough time and then vanishes, once Xy and Xz are reintroduced to one another there is a god chance (depending on the genetic and behavioral difference) that Xz and Xy will not be able to reproduce.
THERE! you have 2 new "species" (relative to one another, they are still "subspecies" from X) (Xz, Xy)from 1 commen acestor (X)
of course species X might still live while Xz and Xy evolve and even when they are reintroduced to one another. possibley breeding with Xz and Xy might be possible via hybridization of Xz with X and Xy with X, narrowing the genetic difference.
of course irl its a little bit more complex. but this is a simple, easily understoond example. something you should be able to understand.
" And monkeys and humans cannot procreate or reproduce with each other"
-_-
according to phylogenetics we are monkeys, chimps are monkeys, extinct monkies are monkeys, go wathc the vid.
but that doesn't really adress the point. this will however.
you don't pick to relatively distinct modern animals , humans, and (in your understanding modern) monkies, and the splice em. THATS NOT HOW SPECIATION WORKS.
" I'm sure they've tried in some communist country somewhere."
honestly....the cold war's over dude.....dammm how off topic can you get...
"You guys are just willingly ignorant."
noooooo you just ignore our arguments and are stupid as hell XD.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
365 says: "if the barrier exists for a long enough time and then vanishes."
When you got to this part you left science. Nobody has ever seen a kind of animal produce a different kind of animal. You left science and didn't even see because of your babbling.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Nobody has ever seen a kind of animal produce a different kind of animal."
you do understand that what i described is how speciation works, don't you?
and that any speciation we observe (which we HAVE!, we linked the sources often enough, you just never read them) will only be minute. but it is STILL speciation.as long as Xz and Xy connat produes fertile offspring, they are a different species. even though they are still a sub species of X. (so they look alot like X but there are some differences)
you seem to think that we must observe the speciation which happens over millions of year...in several generations...that just not how it works...(at least the avolution you want to sea is the branching of a large organism, you won;t accept fruit flies)
mutations don't go that fast...
|
365 says: "if the barrier exists for a long enough time and then vanishes."
When you got to this part you left science."
365 says: "if the barrier exists for a long enough time and then vanishes."
When you got to this part you left science."
i see that you've never heard of the island effect.....or land bridges....or sexual isolation....
nooo sir, you never even tread on science when you accused me of leaving it.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Nobody has ever seen a kind of animal produce a different kind of animal"
i'm not gonna get an answer to this anyway, but i'll just ask it.
what is the "kind" you are referrign too.
what taxanomical level is it?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I already explained this to you. Whatever two creatures that can reproduce with each other are within the kind. It's very simple.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"I already explained this to you. Whatever two creatures that can
reproduce with each other are within the kind. It's very simple."
THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS ASKING BIGDOG!
WHAT is a "kind"?
DEFINE IT.
but i know.. YOU CAN'T. you couldn't at ur baranomy (or whatever it was) posts and you can't now.
and ALSO
evolution NEVER says one branch can jump to another branch...branches can only branch further..
so what you are argueing against is a strawmen creationists created..
Really, what you are arguing agaisnt is even more silly to me then it is to you.
oh.. and WATCH THE DAM VIDS I LINK TO YOU!
or you;re just being willingly ignorant.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Wow! This is the most ignorant answer I've ever read from you.
Anyone reading this with an average common sense can see that you are the one being willingly ignorant if you can't understand my answer to the definition of "kinds."
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Anyone reading this with an average common sense can see that you are
the one being willingly ignorant if you can't understand my answer to
the definition of "kinds."
It's more likely that anyone who has read any substantial number of your posts will realize that you usually write responses that are nothing but ad hominem arguments (in the rare instances when you bother to respond to challenges or criticism of your claims, that is) - and fail to address the substance of the argument.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"one being willingly ignorant if you can't understand my answer to the definition of "kinds.""
HOW CAN I UNDERSTAND IT WHEN YOU HAVEN"t GIVEN ME A DEFENITION!!??!
I know a bit of basic taxonomy and NOWHERE is a classicication made as a "kind". so i';ll ask again:
WHERE is a kind in the taxanomic system? (that's essentially what the question boils down to)
and no more skirting the question. just answer it.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Whatever two creatures that can reproduce with each other are within the kind. It's very simple.
What? Even CreationWiki doesn't support you there. For one, it lists Felidae as a kind - but last I checked, a Tiger cannot reproduce with a housecat. Yet they're both Felids.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"When you got to this part you left science. Nobody has ever seen a kind of animal produce a different kind of animal."
Bullshit. This form of speciation has been observed on countless occasions. Google observed instances of speciaton...look for pupfish...those are interesting...
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
SINCE THE LAST ICEAGE??! damm those fish evolved fast.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Creek_Pupfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
I've tried to help you understand this for a long time.
Sorry, but you don't get to be condescending until you can demonstrate that you have a clue what you're talking about.
A species must "speciate" within their kind. Canines have canines and felines have only felines.
Even just a basic grasp of phylogeny should be enough to realize that the "kind" barrier is completely arbitrary.
Guess what - both of your examples are also tetrapods. So what is the factor that allows divergance / speciation among felids or canids - but not among tetrapods in general?
And monkeys and humans cannot procreate or reproduce with each other.
Eh? You're tilting at windmills - no one has suggested that they can. They are scientifically classified as different species - which are, by definition, unable to interbreed.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Now you flip flopped. Before you said that humans and chimps could procreate. Interesting.
Anyway. To 365, I'm am not trying to limit kinds to taxonomy. Kinds actually falls into the science of baraminology. It's simplified. I know that you don't believe in barminology but it's interesting to note that your favorite liberal web-site "wikipedia" labels taxonomy as non-scientific. They label barminology as it's equivalent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Now you flip flopped. Before you said that humans and chimps could procreate. Interesting.'
eeehm WHEN DID WE SAY THAT NOW?
there might be a chance, but we haven;t tried it... and we probably won;t soon.
"
Non-scientific taxonomies
Non-scientific taxonomies
Other taxonomies, such as those analyzed by Durkheim and Lévi-Strauss, are sometimes called folk taxonomies to distinguish them from scientific taxonomies that focus on evolutionary relationships rather than similarity in habitus and habits. Though phenetics arguably places much emphasis on overall similarity, it is a quantitative analysis that attempts to reproduce evolutionary relationships of lineages and not similarities of form taxa.
The neologism folksonomy should not be confused with "folk taxonomy", though it is obviously a portmanteau created from the two words. "Fauxonomy" (from French faux, "false") is a pejorative neologism used to criticize folk taxonomies for their lack of agreement with scientific findings. Baraminology is a taxonomy used in creation science which in classifying form taxa resembles folk taxonomies.
The phrase "enterprise taxonomy" is used in business to describe a very limited form of taxonomy used only within one organization. An example would be a certain method of classifying trees as "Type A", "Type B" and "Type C" used only by a certain lumber company for categorising log shipments."
k now WHERE is phyologenetics in that list?
or linaean?
i can't find it.. all i can see is baraminoilogy
good try at linking sources tho..but next time..
link some sources that actually SUPPORT your point, instead of annihalating it...rly you look like an ass.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Note that you have yet to answer my question. or perhaps you think this was a fittign answer?
" I'm am not trying to limit kinds to taxonomy. Kinds actually falls into the science of baraminology. It's simplified"
in which case. when ever you say the word "kind", your argument wil hold no taxanomical support whatsoever. essentially negating any points you make concerning animal classification or distictive characteristics of animals. since you admit right here that the term is extremely vague. unlike genus, species, or cladistics.
btw baraminology is a PSEUDO science..quit claiming it is a science when it so clearly is not..(not god in science, and rejectic evidence that doesn't fit the conclusion isn't science either.)
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Macro-evolution is the "PSEUDO" science my friend. And I think that you know this now deep down inside. The idea that man comes from monkeys is a folk taxonomy.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"Macro-evolution is the "PSEUDO" science my friend. And I think that you
know this now deep down inside. The idea that man comes from monkeys is
a folk taxonomy.'
bfore you start repeatign yourself, HOW ABOUT YOU PUT UP SOME ARGUEMENTS!!!!
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Now you flip flopped. Before you said that humans and chimps could procreate. Interesting.
When and where did I ever say that? I'll save you the trouble of looking: as we both know, I haven't made that claim.
Oh, and when you fail to reply (or reply, but dodge the question), I will consider that to be a tacit admission that you were lying. Thanks in advance!
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"I've tried to help you understand this for a long time. A species must
"speciate" within their kind. Canines have canines and felines have
only felines. And monkeys and humans cannot procreate or reproduce with
each other. I'm sure they've tried in some communist country somewhere.
You guys are just willingly ignorant."
Something about a pot calling a cotton swab black....Anyways...you did not answer the question. What mechanism do you propose exist that halts the process of speciation and limits the extent to which populations can change. You are speaking to a bonafide scientist here Big…and he is going to hold your feet to the fire. You can not just accuse me of being “willingly ignorant” while refusing to address my questions.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
How did the flood topic turn into a debate about macroevolution?!? I was only gone for a couple days! Let’s get back on track here. The last point I made was that there is no way all the aquatic organisms could survive in a single habitat. Since we have diverse aquatic life on this planet, the flood theory is impossible. Anyone care to refute that?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
... No one?
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
The pre-flood world was probably more or mostly fresh water. All the sea creatures today have adapted to the salty oceans.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
Salinity is only one factor. I listed several other factors before, maybe you should read over those again. Organisms are specifically adapted to their habitats, and could not adapt to an entirely new habitat within a matter of days.
» Reply to CommentRe: Fish and the Flood
"The pre-flood world was probably more or mostly fresh water. All the sea creatures today have adapted to the salty oceans."
so you are saying they went trough a stage of super fast evolution.
or what other macanism do you propose for adaptation within 1-2 generations.
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
This just shows that you have not studied creation science at all. Hovind explains this on one of his seminars. And other creationists have explained this as well. It would take a while to explain it. If you really want answers watch his seminars.